Muhammad Hādi’s accusation of fornication against a Muslim and the evil of those who spread it on Social Media

In the name of Allah, Most Merciful, Bestower of Mercy. All praise is for Allah. And may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon the Messenger, his Companions and those who follow his guidance. To proceed:

Muhammad Ibn Hādi’s accusation of fornication against a Muslim and the case of those who spread it on Social Media

Muhammad Ibn Hādi stated in his now infamous tirade against the Salafis: “The principle of these people, that the praise of a person and being pleased with him is for the one who is with them. Even if that person is the most immoral and wicked of people with respect to honor, such as the fornicator (‘āhir) and the wicked, immoral Abu Ayoub Al-Maghribi Al-Hollandi, a fornicator (‘āhir) and wicked, immoral person.“

Ibn Hādi also said about him:

• “Boisterous drunkard (‘irbīd).”
• “Wicked and immoral (fājir).”
• “A frequenter of wine-bars (sāhib al-hānāt) and pubs (al-khammārāt).”

(Source: “Āna li Muhammad Ibn Hādi an Yakhruja ‘an Sumātihi.” Translated as, “The time has come for Muhammad ibn Hādi to break his silence.” 19 December 2017 / 1st Rabi Ath-Thāni. Still accessible on the site of Muhammad Ibn Hādi as of 22 September 2018)

The term ‘Āhir is an accusation of fornication (Qadhf) according to the Revelation

These are clear words uttered by Muhammad Ibn Hādi in which accusations of fornication or adultery are made against a Muslim which amount to slander (Qadhf). To prove the point for anyone still in doubt, then there is a clear hadīth of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) which states:

الْوَلَدُ لِلْفِرَاشِ، وَلِلْعَاهِرِ الْحَجَرُ

“The child is attributed to the owner of the bed [in which he was born] and the stone is for the adulterer (‘āhir).” (Al-Bukhāri 2053, Muslim 1457)

This hadīth makes clear that the term ‘āhir refers to a fornicator and adulterer. That is because the stone in this hadīth is stoning of the adulterer.

The Musa’fiqah attempt to deny this clear statement of the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) due to their partisanship and fanaticism to Ibn Hādi. They have been claiming for over a year and a half that the word ‘āhir carries the meaning of sinner and not fornicator. They openly state that if the Sharī’ah court judge in Madīnah passes the ruling of slander and eighty lashes on Muhammad Ibn Hādi then he would be incorrect in his judgment!! A judge who judges in accordance with the hadīth of the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) is incorrect, while the opinion of Ibn Hādi and his followers is more worthy of being followed?! Look how the Companions were when confronted with an opinion that contradicted the statement of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم)…

When the Sahābah differed, the hadīth of Allāh’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) was always given precedence over opinions

Ibn Mājah reports in his Sunan (no. 18) with his chain of narration to Qabīsah who narrated from his father that ‘Ubādah Ibn Sāmit Al-Ansāri (may Allāh be pleased with him), the Companion of Allāh’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) was the head of an army unit. ‘Ubādah went on a military campaign alongside Mu’āwiyah (may Allāh be pleased with him) in the land of the Byzantines. He saw that the people were selling pieces of gold for Dīnārs (gold coins) and pieces of silver for Dirhams (silver coins). So he said: “O people! You are engaged in Ribā (interest). I heard Allāh’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) saying: ‘Do not sell gold for gold unless it is equal measure for equal measure. There must not be any increase or delay in exchange.’”

So Mu’āwiyah said to him: “O Abul-Walīd, I do not hold there is any Ribā (interest) in this except if there is a delay in exchanging.” So ‘Ubādah (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “I narrate to you from Allah’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) and you narrate to me from your opinion? If Allah gets me out of here, I will never live in a land where you have authority over me.”

So when ‘Ubādah returned, he stayed in Madīnah. ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattāb (may Allāh be pleased with him) asked him: “What has brought you here, O Abul-Walīd?” So ‘Ubādah narrated to him the story and that he would not live in a land where Mu’āwiyah had authority.

‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “Return, O Abul-Walīd, to your land for how terrible is a land from where you and those like you are absent.” Then ‘Umar wrote to Mu’āwiyah (may Allāh be pleased with him) saying: “You have no authority over him. And make the people follow what he said for indeed that is the religion.” (Declared sahīh by Al-Albāni)

This is the methodology of the Sahābah (may Allah be pleased with them) as it relates to the Sunnah of Allah’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم). They would not accept the opinions or interpretations that contradict the words of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم).

Today, however, we see the Musa’fiqah youth and blind-followers actively searching for opinions and sayings in order to oppose the Sunnah in support of the Qadhf (slander) of Muhammad Ibn Hādi.

Allah (the Most High) stated about the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم): “And he teaches them the Book and the Wisdom.” (Āli ‘Imrān: 164) Ash-Shaikh Al-‘Allāmah Al-Fawzān commented on this verse: “The Book is the Qur’ān and the Wisdom is the Sunnah. The Sunnah is a necessary obligation. It is the second foundation in the foundations of evidence that are agreed upon. And no consideration is given to those who turn away from it. That is because they are either Khawārij, ignoramuses or feigners of knowledge…” (Sharh Al-Mandhūmah Al-Hā’iyyah, p. 20)

Imām Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (may Allah be merciful with him) said: “I am surprised at a people who know the chain of narration of a hadīth and its authenticity yet they still resort to the opinion of Sufyān! Allāh (the Most High) has said: ‘Let those who disobey the command of the Messenger beware lest they are afflicted by Fitnah or receive a painful punishment.’ (An-Nūr: 63)”

Al-‘Allāmah Al-Fawzān commented: “He means Sufyān Ath-Thawri, the Faqeeh and great Imām. So it is not permissible to take the saying of a Faqeeh, no matter what level he has reached in Fiqh and knowledge, except if it is a clarification of the authentic evidence. However, if he opposes the evidence, then his statement is not accepted because the saying of no person can be put alongside the saying of the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم). Allah stated: ‘O you who believe, do not put yourselves before Allah and His Messenger. And fear Allah, indeed Allah is the Hearer and Knower.’ (Al-Hujurāt:1).” (See Sharh Al-Mandhūmah Al-Hā’iyyah, p. 63)

So when we examine the claim of Muhammad Ibn Hādi and his blind-followers, we see how they desire to extricate themselves from the command of Allah upon the one who accuses a Muslim of fornication and does not bring forth four witnesses (who saw with their eyes the accused committing the act in person). Just look how they refuse the saying of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) concerning the Sharī’ah meaning of the term ‘āhir in order to support Ibn Hadi’s claim? We praise Allah, and are grateful to Him for saving us from the desires that have afflicted the Musa’fiqah.

The term ‘Āhir (fornicator) according to the Scholars based on the clear hadīth

Ibn Abdul-Barr (d.463H) stated: “The ‘āhir is a fornicator (zānī). And al-’uhr is fornication. This is well-known among a group of scholars. And the scholars of fiqh do not differ in this regard.” (At-Tamhīd 8/195.)

So, the truth is that the speech of Muhammad Ibn Hādi cannot be carried upon any meaning other than the accusation of zinā or al-‘uhr (fornication). It would have been better for him to repent to Allah and seek pardon from the one he accused publicly from the microphone by returning to the same Masjid, and retract in the same manner that he initially made the accusations. Instead, a year and a half has now passed by, and he still has made no retraction, no apology, nor have his partisans despite the advice of Shaikh Rabee’, Shaikh ‘Ubayd and many others.

Additionally, many earlier scholars of verification from among the Hanābilah affirmed that the term ‘āhir is an accusation of fornication:

• Ibn Muflih in Al-Furū’ (10/79),
• Al-Mardaway in Al-Insāf (26/373),
• Al-Hajāwi in Al-Iqnā’ Fī Fiqhil-Imām Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (4/262),
• Al-Futūhi in Muntahā Al-Irādāt (2/291),
• Al-Buhūti in Ar-Rawd Al-Murbi’ (p.229), and Sharhu Muntahā Al-Irādāt (3/356).

And there are many other scholars who have narrated the same position based on the hadīth of the Prophet as Ibn Hādi himself knows. The accusation of fornication against any Muslim without bringing forth four reliable Muslim witnesses [who saw the act in person] is forbidden by the Qur’an, Sunnah and Ijmā’ — it is a major sin. Under Sharī’ah Law, the accuser is punished with 80 lashes of the whip, after which Allah declares him to be a sinner (fāsiq) and his witness is no longer accepted. Allāh, the Most High, said:

وَالَّذِينَ يَرْمُونَ الْمُحْصَنَاتِ ثُمَّ لَمْ يَأْتُوا بِأَرْبَعَةِ شُهَدَاءَ فَاجْلِدُوهُمْ ثَمَانِينَ جَلْدَةً وَلَا تَقْبَلُوا لَهُمْ شَهَادَةً أَبَدًا ۚ وَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ – 24:4

“And those who accuse chaste women [or men] and do not produce four witnesses, lash them with eighty lashes — and thereafter, do not ever accept testimony from them. And they are the sinners.” (An-Nūr 24:4)

Imām Muhammad ibn Badr Ad-Deen ibn Balbān Ad-Dimashqi (d. 1083H) stated, “The one who accuses a chaste person is lashed if he is a free person, with eighty lashes.” Al-’Allāmah Al-Fawzān explained this statement: “The meaning here is to accuse someone of the immoral act of fornication or homosexuality such as saying, ‘so-and-so fornicated’ or ‘so-and-so committed the act of homosexuality.’ So, it is said to the accuser if the one who is accused requests that, ‘Either you bring four witnesses to what you have said otherwise the prescribed punishment of slandering a Muslim will be established upon you.’” The Shaikh continued, “This is so as to protect the honour of individual Muslims from filthy accusations, and to prevent the tongues from foul speech. Also, Islam demands that the shortcomings of the Muslims are concealed as much as possible, and to offer advice to the one accused.” (See Idāhul-’Ibārāt fi Sharhi Akhsar Al-Mukhtasārāt 3/311-312)

This accusation is a major sin deserving of punishment, loss of trustworthiness and the label of sin

Al-‘Allāmah Al-Fawzān (حفظه الله) commented on this verse: “And those who accuse chaste women [or men] and do not produce four witnesses, lash them with eighty lashes — and thereafter, do not ever accept testimony from them. And they are the sinners.” In his explanation of Bulūgh Al-Marām, under the chapter: “The Prescribed Punishment for Accusing a Muslim of Fornication (القذف)” he said, “It is a major sin and its prohibition is proven by the Book, Sunnah and ijmā’. And three punishments are for those who make such accusations:

• The first punishment: Eighty lashes.
• The second punishment: Their trustworthiness (‘adālah) is nullified so, their bearing witness is not accepted.
• The third punishment: They are described as sinful, and that means exiting obedience to Allah.

The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said, ‘Avoid the seven deadly sins…’ and he mentioned one of those sins as, ‘accusing chaste believing women [or men] of committing fornication.’ (Al-Bukhāri 6857, Muslim 89.)”

(See Tas-heel Al-Ilmām, 5/256)

So, the reports and witness of Muhammad Ibn Hādi cannot be accepted, and his trustworthiness is nullified, even for the sighting of the moon of Ramadān and ‘Eid!! So whatever he narrates that contradicts the statements of Al-‘Allāmah Rabee’, or Al-‘Allāmah ‘Ubayd, or the ‘Ālim, Shaikh Al-Bukhāri is rejected from two angles:

1. From the aspect of the sciences of hadīth: Those whom he contradicted such as Shaikh Rabee’ are more reliable, precise and trustworthy than him by agreement of Ahlul-‘ilm and Hadīth.
2. From the aspect of his Qadhf of a Muslim without bringing forth four reliable Muslim witnesses to prove his accusation.

It is not permitted to expose the sins of a Muslim even if you know them to be true — especially if he has sought to hide them or has repented

Even if we assume (for the sake of argument) that a particular Muslim is guilty of a major sin, then it is not permissible for one person to expose another, to humiliate him and uncover his sins. And this is especially so if that Muslim seeks to hide his previous sins and has repented from them. The Messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه وسلم) ascended the Minbar and called out with a raised voice:

يَا مَعْشَرَ مَنْ قَدْ أَسْلَمَ بِلِسَانِهِ وَلَمْ يُفْضِ الإِيمَانُ إِلَى قَلْبِهِ لاَ تُؤْذُوا الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَلاَ تُعَيِّرُوهُمْ وَلاَ تَتَّبِعُوا عَوْرَاتِهِمْ فَإِنَّهُ مَنْ تَتَبَّعَ عَوْرَةَ أَخِيهِ الْمُسْلِمِ تَتَبَّعَ اللَّهُ عَوْرَتَهُ وَمَنْ تَتَبَّعَ اللَّهُ عَوْرَتَهُ يَفْضَحْهُ وَلَوْ فِي جَوْفِ رَحْلِهِ 

“O you who has accepted Islam with his tongue, while īmān has not reached his heart! Do not harm the Muslims, nor revile them, nor pursue them to expose their concealed sins. For indeed whoever tries to expose his Muslim brother’s sins, Allah will expose his concealed sins, even if he is in the depth of his house.” 

One day Ibn ‘Umar looked at the Ka’bah and said, “What is there that is more honoured than you! And whose honour is more sacred than yours! Indeed, the believer’s honour is more sacred to Allah than you.” (Both narrations: Tirmidhi 2032, see Sahīh Al-Jāmi’ 7985)

The fact is that Muslims are constantly repenting to Allah with supplications and prayers, and He is Oft-Forgiving, the One who accepts repentance from His slaves over and over again. So you may be exposing the previous sins of a Muslim whom Allah has already forgiven! The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said, “The one who repented from a sin is like the one who has no sin.” (Ibn Mājah 4250, Sahīh Al-Jāmi’ 3008) Just think if that Muslim is a Salafi who Prays, Fasts, gives Sadaqah, performs Hajj and ‘Umrah and seeks forgiveness, then why would anyone expose the sins that he hates to be exposed?! So this spreading of sins is forbidden and the spreader of such scandal is threatened with Hell as the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) stated:

 لاَ يَدْخُلُ الْجَنَّةَ قَتَّاتٌ

“The spreader of scandal will not enter Paradise.” (Tirmidhi 2026, declared sahīh by Al-Albāni) It is upon those who spread this scandal emanating from Muhammad Ibn Hādi to repent to Allah before they die and are then brought back to life and taken to account. On that day, no person can save another from the wrath of Allah, the Almighty!

Add to this the fact the Musa’fiqah know that the word ‘āhir refers to a fornicator — and Allah commanded with the bringing forth of four witnesses to prove the accusation, yet Ibn Hādi and his followers have done that.

Shaikh Al-Fawzān rebukes the humiliating language employed by Muhammad Ibn Hādi

Ash-Shaikh Al-’Allāmah, Sālih Al-Fawzān was asked: What is the ruling of describing a sinner with terms like, “So-and-so is a fornicator (‘āhir)” or “So-and-so is a fājir”, or “so-and-so is an ‘irbīd”?  So, Al-‘Allāmah Al-Fawzān answered, “It is not permitted to humiliate a person due to sins, rather it is upon him to advise him and to conceal his sins. The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said, ‘Whoever hides [the sins of] a Muslim, Allah will hide [his sins] in this world and the Hereafter.’”

(Source: Question after his class, At-Ta’leeq ‘Ala Fathul-Majeed, Tuesday 3rd Rajab 1439H/ 20th March 2018; and only three months after the slanderous lecture of Muhammad Ibn Hādi)

The questioner precisely asked about the terms employed by Ibn Hādi. And the answer shows Shaikh Al-Fawzān’s rebuke of this unbefitting and ugly behavior towards other Muslims. So it is not correct to say that Shaikh Al-Fawzān supports Ibn Hādi in his slanders and futile refutations against the People of Sunnah and Hadīth. So here, in the answer of Shaikh Al-Fawzān, our point has been made; i.e. that Ibn Hādi was wrong and he remains unrepentant. And if the Musa’fiqah wish to claim that Shaikh Al-Fawzān is in agreement with their leader (Muhammad Ibn Hādi) in his initial slanders against Ahlul-Sunnah, let them encourage Muhammad Ibn Hādi to transcribe his slanders (from the audio) and send them to Shaikh Al-Fawzān and the Mufti, Shaikh Abdul-‘Azīz and solicit their response. We have our answer from the Book of Allah, the Sunnah, the statements of the Salaf, then Shaikh Al-Fawzān and the Sharī’ah Court of Madīnah, Saudi Arabia. So let them now bring theirs!

The correct Salafi position regarding Muhammad Ibn Hādi and his blinded and ignorant fanatics (Al-Musa’fiqah)

Shaikh Rabee’ (حفظه الله) was asked about Muhammad ibn Hādi on 29th Ramadān 1439 (2018CE) and his recent sayings. Shaikh Rabee’ responded, “Do not take the speech of Muhammad Ibn Hādi, he wages war against Salafiyyah and the Salafis.” (Narrated by Shaikh Abdullāh Adh-Dhufīri, in a document present with the author)

Shaikh ‘Ubaid (حفظه الله) said regarding him, “Do not be deceived by the warnings of Ibn Hādi. The warnings of Shaikh Muhammad Ibn Hādi, then do not be deceived by them, and do not pay them any concern…” (Recording: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZN-CJtxHro)

Are the fanatical followers also guilty of Qadhf ready to be tried in a Saudi Sharī’ah court?

Those who translated this Qadhf (accusation of adultery) and they put it on YouTube, spread it on Twitter, etc are also guilty and deserving of the prescribed punishment (Hadd) in the Sharī’ah courts. Those who affirmed and disseminated the speech of Muhammad Ibn Hādi are sinful according to Sharī’ah law.

Imām Ash-Shinqīti (رحمه الله) said, “Know that the clearest speech of the ‘ulamā with me in the issue wherein a man accuses another man of fornication, and a third one says: ‘You have spoken the truth’ then this one has also slandered, and it is obligatory to establish the prescribed punishment upon him too.”

(Adwā Al-Bayān of the Allāmah and Mufassir, Muhammad Amīn Ash-Shinqīti 6/111, see also Majmu’ Al-‘Allāmah Ibn Sa’di 12/58)

So, we say, if this individual steps foot into the land of Saudi Arabia, the brother Abu Ayyūb al-Maghribi al-Hollāndi is well within his Islamic rights to seek that this slanderer is tried in the Sharī’ah court and punished in the same manner that the judgment was passed on Muhammad Ibn Hādi. So let them fear Allah.

We shall see if they will stand up in a Sharī’ah Court and argue against the clear hadīth of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) or whether they will humble themselves before Allah and take the hadīth as it has come and repent to Allah and seek pardon from those whom they have accused and oppressed.

In conclusion: All praise is due to Allah, Lord of all creation. May the peace and blessings of Allah be upon the Messenger, his family, his Companions and those who follow him till the Hour is established.